HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-07-08 jameson letterARCHITECTS P.A.
July 8, 2016
Mr. Mark Brown / Ms. Jill Judy
400 W. 181h Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72206
Re: 113 E. 91h Street
Dear Mark and Jill:
Per your request, I walked through 113 E. 9th with your property manager this morning and
offer the following commentary about the existing structure, its condition, and its potential for
rehabilitation vs. demolition.
In general, the building is in poor condition and has received many alterations, most of which
were poorly executed, removed historic fabric, and were not historically compatible. Limited
original fabric is present in the form of some 2nd floor original windows, original stair (less
balustrade), and very limited window and door trim. No original doors were noted. Original
plaster has been substantially veneered with gypsum board.
Original stair, less balustrade.
NE 20° floor room. This is one of only two spaces with original trim and base.
300 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-666-6600 FAX 501-666-5177
www.jamesonarchitects.com
First floor west side.
Typ. Interior wall with GB added over piaster w/ water damage
First floor rear apartment.
First floor east side at bay, devoid of historic fabric.
Multiple areas of soft and sloping floors were noted, which support the findings of Curry's Pest
Control and Matt Foster Construction.
21. u c e
The brick veneer is not original to the structure and is the most problematic issue. This point is
supported by the Sanborn maps, which do not indicate brick veneer in 1892 but do indicate
veneer by 1939. This is further supported by the several original shutter hinges in place on
window frames that do not allow for the added depth of the brick veneer; the fact that the
corbeled cornice shows some brick with 8 holes, indicative of being laid in a more modern era;
the deeply recessed north gable end, still showing the plane of the original front wall with its
original fascia and soffit; and the very unusual detail of corbelled brick and gutter. With the
veneer being added, it is likely not supported adequately at the foundation and likely was
added without the use masonry wall ties. This conclusion is further supported by the extent of
previous repairs that have been attempted and the failure of the veneer on the east side, all of
which have contributed to moisture problems and related decay. The remaining veneer would
be very challenging to repair in place, thus removal would probably be the best solution.
Front elevation. Note shutter hinges at windows (which cannot function with brick veneer) and the recessed original gable end with original
fascia/soffit.
If the brick were to be removed, there is likely evidence of original wood siding (empty nail
holes, etc.) or the some siding could still possibly be in place. If in place, it is likely in very poor
condition due to leaks, termites, condensation, etc. Then the question arises as to whether or
not the added brick veneer is significant, due to how long it has been in place, even though
poorly implemented. Regardless of which direction would be chosen, the expense for either
alternative would be very significant, in addition to all the other issues present.
31.
In conclusion, it is not a question of whether or not this structure can be rehabilitated. With
unlimited funding, amazing things can be done — but the real question is would it make financial
sense. In this case, regretfully the balance seems to shift to away from rehabilitation.
Referencing the HDC staff report, I believe that this property meets conditions 3 through 5
wherein demolition permits may be granted if:
3) Economic hardship relating to the cost of rehabilitation vs. the potential return;
4) the building has lost its architectural integrity (and in this case has never has been
contributing to the district); and
5) no other reasonable alternative is feasible.
I hope you find this analysis useful. If you have any questions, please call or email.
Cordially,
JAMESON Architects PA
Tommy Jameson, AIA
tommy@iamesonarchitects.com
41? o g